Aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, & Israel Approved by House

 

After months of delay, rhetoric, and rancor, the House finally    passed some much-needed financial aid packages for three countries, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. House Speaker Mike Johnson, notified that his job was on the line if he brought these bills to a vote, did so anyway. He was, of course, denounced by his right-wing opponents. Each bill was passed as a separate measure without harmful add-ons or poison pills. The Border restructuring/immigration bill was not attached, as it would require a supermajority. Johnson worked with the Democrats and many in his party to make these votes happen. A bill requiring the sale of TikTok was also passed in this manner.

By separating the three funding issues, those members with specific concerns could make their statements and vote accordingly.

According to the reporting in the New York Times:

"The legislation includes $60 billion for Kyiv; $26 billion for Israel and humanitarian aid for civilians in conflict zones, including Gaza; and $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific region. It would direct the president to seek repayment from the Ukrainian government of $10 billion in economic assistance, a concept supported by former President Donald J. Trump, who had pushed for any aid to Kyiv to be in the form of a loan. But it also would allow the president to forgive those loans starting in 2026.

The vote was 311 to 112 in favor of the aid to Ukraine, with a majority of Republicans — 112 — voting against it and one, Representative Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, voting "present." The House approved assistance to Israel 366 to 58; and to Taiwan 385 to 34, with Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, voting "present." The bill to impose sanctions on Iran and require the sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner or ban the app in the United States passed 360 to 58.

Thirty-seven liberal Democrats opposed the $26 billion aid package for Israel because the legislation placed no conditions on how Israel could use American funding, as the death toll in Gaza has reached more than 33,000 and the threat of famine looms. That showed a notable dent in the longstanding ironclad bipartisan backing for Israel in Congress, but was a relatively small bloc of opposition given that left-wing lawmakers had pressed for a large "no" vote on the bill to send a message to Mr. Biden about the depth of opposition within his political coalition to his backing for Israel's tactics in the war."

Questions without straightforward answers: What do you think about unconditional military aid to Israel given the continued deaths and famine in Gaza? What do you think about the US imposing sanctions on Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank who attacked residents in their towns after a teenage shepherd was murdered? Should Israel have attacked Iranian military members at a consulate in Syria?

Now there are increased tensions between Israel, Iran, and others in the region. I think this attack was provocative and highly irresponsible. With luck and diplomacy, which I hope prevail, Iran and Israel will not keep on waving weapons at each other's countries.

Representative Marjorie Taylor-Greene (recently dubbed 'Moscow Marjorie' by some for her support of President Putin) denounced the support for Ukraine and tried to kill it with many onerous amendments that were voted down by her colleagues. Recent press reports mentioned many Republicans who bought into the propaganda being widely spread by Russian media and others and were echoing these remarks in their public comments. Representative Turner called out these members as belonging to the Russian wing of the party.

As noted by the Guardian:

"Mike Turner, the chairperson of the US House intelligence committee, says some of his fellow Republicans are "absolutely" repeating Russian propaganda on the chamber floor, echoing a similar claim made recently by another right-wing American lawmaker.

"It is absolutely true we see, directly coming from Russia, attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor," the Ohio congressman told CNN's State of the Union show.

Turner maintained that one high-profile instance of such misinformation centered on cases where federal lawmakers have sought to portray Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine as a war between NATO and Vladimir Putin's forces.

"Of course, it is not," Turner said. "To the extent that this propaganda takes hold, it makes it more difficult for us to really see this as an authoritarian versus democracy battle."

Many Republicans, understanding that their candidate wanted an end to the war in Ukraine, voted against the funding, while others did not. Does this mean the former president has lost support as he sits and reportedly sleeps at his New York trial on falsifying business records to cover up payments to a porn star? Mike Johnson met with DJT at his Florida home over the last week and most likely discussed these votes with him. In a public statement after the meeting, the former president indicated he stood with the Speaker.

Does this mean that a corner has been turned, that the House will finally act as the responsible legislative body, it was under the leadership of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi? I do not know, but it turns out that Democrats and Republicans discussed the matters before the votes were called. The Speaker knew he could count on enough support from Democrats to pass these bills, regardless of the threats from members of his party.

According to the Times, Johnson, who long opposed this aid until a recent shift in perspective, supported it after receiving intelligence briefings about the dire situation in Ukraine with continued Russian bombings, troop advances, and the war crimes committed by the Russians. He also noted that should Putin succeed in Ukraine, all of Europe could be in danger because he would not stop at its borders.

ABC News reported on this:
Speaker Mike Johnson earned praise from both a top Republican and a progressive Democrat on Sunday for allowing votes on a $95 billion foreign aid package, suggesting he'll be able to hold onto his job if conservative hard-liners make good on their threat to force a vote to remove him as the leader of the House.

"I am so proud of the speaker, Mike Johnson. He went through a transformation," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said on ABC News' "This Week." "At the end of the day, a profile in courage is putting the nation above yourself -- and that's what he did. He said, 'At the end of the day, I'm going to be on the right side of history, irrespective of my job,' and I think that was what I admired so much."

Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, agreed.

"I disagree with Speaker Johnson on many issues, and I've been very critical of him," Khanna told "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl in a separate interview. "But he did the right thing here and he deserves to keep his job 'til the end of his term."

These bills will now go to the Senate, which long ago approved an aid package, and then on to President Biden for his signature.

The White House issued this statement, which says in part:

Today, members of both parties in the House voted to advance our national security interests and send a clear message about the power of American leadership on the world stage. At this critical inflection point, they came together to answer history's call, passing urgently needed national security legislation that I have fought for months to secure.

Tomorrow is Earth Day–Celebrate!

And as noted by Heather Cox Richardson today: https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#

"In a statement, Biden noted that no one can any longer deny the impacts and staggering costs of climate change as the nation confronts historic floods, droughts, and hurricanes.  Biden noted that he brought the US back into the Paris Climate Accord Trump pulled out of, is on track to conserve more lands and waters than any president before him, and has worked with the international community to slash methane emissions and restore lost forests."

Til next week-Peace!

Celebrate Earth Day-but Watch the Supreme Court

 

In April we see Spring arrive in its glory as trees, grasses, and flowers all come forth in beauty and abundance. April is also when we celebrate Earth Day, a date set aside way back in 1970 to encourage communities to focus on their environment.

Here is a poem about Spring ..and life by Philip Larkin, a British poet (1922-1985) who did not consider this poem his best, but knew it conveyed a message.

The Trees, by Philip Larkin

The trees are coming into leaf

Like something almost being said;

The recent buds relax and spread,

Their greenness is a kind of grief.

Is it that they are born again

And we grow old? No, they die too,

Their yearly trick of looking new

Is written down in rings of grain.

Yet still the unresting castles thresh

In full-grown thickness every May.

Last year is dead, they seem to say,

Begin afresh, afresh, afresh.

 

On that first Earth Day estimates were that over twenty million people took part at some level in their communities as they planted trees, removed rubbish from streams, and collected litter along roadways. From coast to coast, schools, and colleges, just regular folks, business owners, elected officials, and grandmothers, got out and about and looked at their environment. What they saw was not encouraging, as industrial waste polluted streams and groundwater, and smokestacks at chemical sites spewed noxious fumes into the air, causing smog and exposing nearby communities to carcinogens.

Later that year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed to address these concerns. Its mission, as described here by the Library of Congress research arm:

“Was established in response to the growing public demand for cleaner water, air, and land—its mission to protect the environment and public health. Earth Day also was the precursor of the largest grassroots environmental movement in US history and the impetus for national legislation such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. At the turn of the twenty-first century, the EPA announced new requirements for improving air quality in national parks and wilderness areas and establishing regulations requiring more than 90 percent cleaner heavy-duty highway diesel engines and fuel.”

“By the twentieth anniversary of the first event, more than 200 million people in 141 countries had participated in Earth Day celebrations. The celebrations continue to grow.”

Today, the EPA is still working to protect our communities and our environment. Its website suggests ways everyone can contribute to these efforts.

Lower your carbon footprint.

Reduce, reuse, recycle

Be water smart, conserve

Feed people, not landfills

The website also discusses the way an Act such as the Clean Air and Water Act became law and regulations were written. The EPA also works to enforce these regulations with inspections and fines when violations are found.

Industrial plants with polluting smokestacks that send pollutants into the air such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxides, carbon dioxides, carbon monoxides, and particulate matter were required to take measures to stop this contamination. These measures included adding particulate controllers such as cyclone separators, fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators that removed certain pollutants while smoke stack scrubbers removed sulfur, incineration residue, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Excess carbon was captured and pumped into the ground to remove the greenhouse effects it could cause in the air.

This is just a minor example of the issues the EPA deals with annually in one industry. It is known that some plants contribute to water pollution by discharging contaminated water used in their chemical processes into nearby streams, while other industries store chemicals in unsafe containers that can leak toxic materials into the ground. Additional regulations were added to address this issue, especially when factories closed and abandoned their former worksites, leaving contaminated acres behind. The provisions in Super Fund legislation allowed for long-term evaluation and clean-up as such sites were identified. The EPA website describes the process.

“Thousands of contaminated sites exist nationally due to hazardous waste being dumped, left out in the open, or otherwise improperly managed. These sites include manufacturing facilities, processing plants, landfills, and mining sites. 

In the late 1970s, toxic waste dumps such as Love Canal and Valley of the Drums received national attention when the public learned about the risks to human health and the environment posed by contaminated sites. 

In response, Congress established the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. CERCLA is informally called Superfund. It allows EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work. 

When there is no viable responsible party, the Superfund gives the EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites. 

Superfund’s goals are to:

Protect human health and the environment by cleaning up contaminated sites;

Make responsible parties pay for cleanup work;

Involve communities in the Superfund process; and

Return Superfund sites to productive use.”

 

 I know I was stunned to realize that in the Love Canal community, residents had been vaguely aware of chemical drums along the canal. Here is a report at the time:

“NIAGARA FALLS, NY--Twenty-five years after the Hooker Chemical Company stopped using the Love Canal here as an industrial dump, 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, have been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school built on the banks of the canal.”

“In an article prepared for the February 1978 EPA Journal, {I wrote}, regarding chemical dumpsites in general, that "even though some of these landfills have been closed down, they may stand like ticking time bombs." Just months later, Love Canal exploded.

The explosion was triggered by a record amount of rainfall. Shortly thereafter, the leaching began.

I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, and others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere, the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.”

The state of NY evacuated the community, helped to resettle the residents, and started the cleanup. However, this did little to help the families with pediatric cancers and others with severe related medical conditions.

In eastern Washington state, the Hanford nuclear site is another known hazardous area. Here, nuclear waste including, plutonium, is stored in corroding and leaking tanks which are already contaminating the soil. Currently, the solution for containment has been to place tarps over the tanks. The US has no suitable spots for storing nuclear waste or even cleaning it up. The half-life of plutonium (the time it would take for half of the materials to be used up naturally by degrading, evaporation, etc.,) is over 24,000 years. There have been plans to place nuclear waste in deep salt mines, but nearby communities have made objections. So, what do we do with materials we cannot control? Sadly, there are no quick or easy answers.

For those in Maryland living near Fort Detrick, a former biological warfare laboratory test site, there is a plat called Area B where chemical, biological, medical, and radiological materials were discarded over many years. Even though the biological site closed in 1980, these toxic materials are still in the process of decontamination. Nearby wells were closed decades ago to lessen community exposure.

I have just touched on a tiny bit of the work being done in the areas of clean water and air. Also not mentioned are the increased asthma rates in the inner city from industrial pollutants and automobile emissions. I have not discussed the documented increased cancer rates in poor communities in Texas nestled against plants associated with chemical and petroleum-based products where residents are called to shelter in place whenever something goes wrong at the plant. I also have not reviewed the reality that industries are fighting back against many regulations. For many years, the EPA won these battles. Now, over the last few sessions, the Supreme Court is rolling back some of the established rules as excessive.

As reported by NPR:

Alex Brandon/AP Re: Sackett vs. EPA

The US Supreme Court on Thursday significantly curtailed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the nation's wetlands and waterways. It was the court's second decision in a year limiting the ability of the agency to enact anti-pollution regulations and combat climate change.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the navigable waters of the United States regulated by the EPA under the statute do not include many previously regulated wetlands. Rather, he said, the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes, and those wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court's three liberal members, disputed Alito's reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court's new test will have quote "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States."

Others have argued that wetlands play an enormous role in water and land protections and this decision will be harmful in the long term.

“As in last year's case limiting the EPA's ability to regulate air pollution from power plants, the decision was a major victory for the groups that supported the Sacketts — mining, oil, utilities and, in today's case, agricultural and real estate interests as well.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation issued a detailed statement: (I only quote a part here, but follow the link for a detailed review.)

“The Supreme Court issued a disastrous ruling recently that eliminates federal safeguards for a broad swath of wetlands and waterways critical to restoring the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and other damaged water bodies across the country.

The May 25 decision in Sackett v. EPA said the Clean Water Act only protects wetlands and other waters adjacent to streams, rivers, and other "navigable waters" that are "indistinguishable" from those waters because of a "continuous surface connection" between the wetlands and the navigable waters.

As a result, thousands of isolated wetlands unique to our region and integral to Bay restoration, called Delmarva Bays and pocosins, no longer qualify for protection under the Supreme Court's narrow new definition of "waters of the United States" covered by the Clean Water Act.”

(If you, like me, did not know what a pocosin is: it is defined as naturally occurring freshwater evergreen shrub wetlands of the southeastern coastal plains with deep acidic peat soils.)

More cases are on the horizon reports the NY Times, as Republican Attorney Generals from 24 states have already sued the Biden administration regarding changes reducing levels for pollution emissions on fine particulate matter. That issue is expected to work its way to the Supreme Court.

So, while millions and millions of Americans support clean air and water, the Supreme Court wants to reduce or gut regulations supporting those efforts.

Voting matters!

Til next week- Peace!

Better Off Now Than Four Years Ago

 

Some Republicans hope that most Americans have poor memories. As they dare to promote the era of the former resident as one of peace and prosperity, they ask, “Are you better off now than when he was in office”? My answer is a firm YES. I am absolutely better off now. Some of my personal and global explanations are below.

In March 2020, over the course of a few days, I went from working in an office to getting set up and working from home, as did many others, when the COVID pandemic arrived in our communities. Abruptly, we learned to do our work in the Cloud, hold online team and Zoom conferences, and configure our homes into workspaces.

We immediately began searching for gloves and surgical masks to protect ourselves from this unknown virus for the rare times when we ventured into public spaces such as grocery stores. The stores put down physical barriers to keep us apart, painted ‘feet shapes’ on the floors to show us where to stand, and placed barriers at check-out counters to protect their masked workers.

Nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, aides, and others employed in hospitals discovered a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE), limited respirators, and inadequate medications to combat this unfamiliar and lethal virus. They received little help from a president who assured the country that we would only have twenty cases and he would keep the virus away by not allowing at-sea cruise lines to dock and off-load passengers who might have been exposed or infected while away. His government allowed the stocks of health emergency supplies to deteriorate, go out of date, or become unusable, so the gloves, lab supplies for viral tests, and respirators were just not to be found in the governmental storehouses.

As businesses and schools shut down, people masked up and isolated, and elderly patients in nursing homes were dying, the president did little to improve the situation when he ignored the advice of healthcare professionals when they predicted the situation would continue to get worse. Instead, he relied on the advice of quack advisors, suggested that people inject bleach or take a drug used for malaria or lupus called Hydroxychloroquine, neither of which had been deemed effective. (Subsequently, actual lupus patients who needed the medication could not find it, because of this alternative promoted use.) Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control, (CDC) worked to develop a test to determine the presence of the virus that could be in widespread use. That, too, did not go well initially. Our government, staffed by some of the best scientists in the world, did not have the tools to jump in at the outset of the pandemic because those in charge did not want to acknowledge the seriousness of the pandemic. Ignoring it did not make it go away. Warnings were worldwide, beginning in January. America did not even address the conditions until March. By then, there was no easy way to contain the spread.

The president did not assist the public health messages when he refused to isolate or wear a mask, even as any who came in contact with him had to be tested for the virus. He encouraged movements in some states where anti-maskers refused to wear a mask or protect workplaces. Some pastors held outdoor church services to protect their parishioners, while others decried the ‘governmental interference with religion’ as they saw it and held indoor services. Many people then identified them as disease spreaders, calling them “super spreaders” when large numbers of their congregations got infected. And, as became apparent later, once the president contacted the virus, he did not mask nor announce this, kept up public appearances, and was possibly another one of the super spreaders.

When plants and other production lines shut down, suddenly America learned about supply chain issues. Were you a person going from grocery stores to 7-11s trying to find toilet tissue, or hitting the neighborhood online news to see who just got in a supply? And, when you got there, you learned you were limited to only two packages? When you went to the grocery, meats, and vegetables were not only in short supply but prices were suddenly much higher than before. Again, the Federal government appeared to not know how to solve these problems.

Then, as people started dying in large numbers, some tried to hide the totals. But, as refrigerated trucks full of bodies piled up outside New York City hospitals and morgues, people noticed. As Governor Cuomo went on TV calling for help with respirators, PPE, and staffing, the president did little. He even said he would send respirators to those governors who asked nicely. Older adults suffered the most as, when one ages, one’s ability to fight off infections decreases.

Public health advocates were encouraged by the arrival of vaccines but were astonished by the resistance to widespread immunizations. The anti-vaxxers followed the anti-maskers movements, leading to a delayed and imperfect vaccination program. COVID is still here. As recently as February, CNN reported, thousands of senior citizens are still dying each month. CDC data today notes that throughout the active pandemic period, there were 6,909,932 hospitalizations and 1,187,509 deaths. This number does not count the cases now recognized as the extended form of the disease known as long-covid.

There are so many other reasons I am better off now, aside from COVID issues. Consider the supply chain issue. When President Biden took office, cargo ships were lined up for weeks along the California coast waiting to off-load their wares. Companies could not fix appliances or find necessary parts because they were sitting on those ships. President Biden changed the issue, got the docks working around the clock, and soon resolved most of the problem.

Getting vaccinated against COVID has protected my health, but I still refrain from wading into sizeable crowds or taking unnecessary risks because I am older and have other health concerns. However, I also do not worry that my president will try to take away my Social Security, decrease my Medicare or prescription coverage, or take away Medicaid for those who need it. Some higher drug costs are being reviewed and the costs for insulin and some inhalers came down because of presidential pressure and congressional action. I do not worry that my president will attack the Affordable Care Act as his opponent is now promising to do. As for health care, I am better off except for the Dobbs’ decision rendered by some justices DJT selected. I hope women speak up and come out to vote this November on this issue. A population should not lose rights on spurious legal grounds.

We are all better off now because President Biden has rolled back the diminished acreage in public parklands such as Bears Ears in Utah implemented by his predecessor. I believe he will continue to protect the environment; I do not believe DJT had any interest in doing that as he continued to promote fossil fuels and their mining. Heather Cox Richardson wrote about this issue in her column today.

Although DJT constantly spoke of infrastructure week, he never implemented it, while President Biden already has shovels in the ground across the country on a variety of projects that are improving communities and creating jobs. The country is better off as unemployment is low and more jobs are being created each month. Inflation has come down, but corporate greed continues to keep some prices high. Fortunately, some minimum wage increases are helping unions and other working families.

I could go on and mention more, but I think you get my point. I remember those scary days back in 2020 that were made much worse because of inept leadership. President Biden is a workhorse, not a show horse. He is not glitzy, but he is thoughtful. He does not threaten populations or call immigrants animals, nor does he plan to disrupt courts, the rule of law, or plan a coup. So, in conclusion, we are all better off now and I hope for the next four years under a wise, not a wild leader.

Before I close, did you see the Eclipse today? I watched from my backyard off and on this afternoon, using my special glasses. Maryland was out of the track for totality, but I enjoyed what I could see. Awesome!! It was also encouraging to see the number of children and families gathered across the country to share this significant event. I hope it moves more young people to look into science as a career.

Til next week-Peace!

Is Your Bridge Red or Blue?

Sadly, this week a disabled and powerless 1000-foot-long, approximately two-million-pound container ship crashed into a post support for the 1.6-mile-long Francis Scott Key Bridge that spans the Patapsco River at the Port of Baltimore and carries Highway 695 around the city. The steel truss-style bridge collapsed into the waters of the harbor, taking with it 6 workers who were repairing potholes during the overnight hours. So far, the bodies of two workers have been found. Another worker escaped and is in the hospital with serious injuries. All the workers were Hispanic immigrants, which led some on the right toward immigrant-bashing, rather than empathy. What hole do these folks live in? Local police officers were noted as heroes as they stopped traffic entering the bridge as soon as they heard the May Day call from the Container ship just before it struck the span. No vehicles were crossing the bridge when it fell.

This bridge is a vital part of the Baltimore Highway System as vehicles carrying hazardous materials north and south of the city cannot use the routes through the Harbor Tunnel (895) or the Fort McHenry Tunnel along I95. The Key Bridge, which had a toll, carried an average of 30,000 vehicles daily, or 12.4 million vehicles in 2023. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers and others are working to remove the debris, steel trusses, and hazardous wastes that resulted, causing the closure of this access road east of the City. This incident has blocked all marine traffic at the Port of Baltimore. The Container ship now sits dead in the waters, having lost power and some of its containers. The ship called the Dali, has a crew from India and was heading to Sri Lanka. It is owned by a group out of Singapore and Hong Kong but was being leased by the Danish giant shipping firm Maersk. This certainly underscores the international nature of shipping and reinforces the fact that running these giant lines requires companies to manage many lines of commerce concurrently. Incidents such as this, the issues with ship attacks in the Middle East, and the drought in Panama all affect the flow of marine commerce and eventually interfere with the supply chain. For example, Baltimore is the major port of entry for foreign manufactured cars and trucks and exports coal from mines along the East Coast.

The bridge was built in 1977 according to standards in use at that time, but no longer employed after subsequent collapses of other similar bridges over the decades. The cost, 41 years ago, was around 60 million dollars comparable to over 300 million today. President Biden and Transportation Secretary Buttigieg announced the release of 60 million dollars from an emergency fund just to start the cleanup and promised to ask Congress for funds to rebuild this necessary connection in the federal highway system. Governor Wes Moore of Maryland and Mayor Brandon Scott of Baltimore spoke at a press conference with sympathy about the deaths of the workers and the need for a rapid rebuilding of the bridge. The port usually ships more than a million containers annually. Shipping directly employs thousands of workers and involves many more thousands in the harbor support networks, so the city will experience severe losses in jobs, port fees, and other revenues. The Washington Post talked to some Long Shoremen at the port in this video link about the local impact here.

These are the facts, plain and simple. This event was a tragedy for all involved, but it was an accident, not a nefarious plot.

But the right-wingers out there are not ones to ever let an accident be – it must either be due to terrorism, sabotage, or the implementation of those inclusion laws (Diversity, Equity inclusion, or DEI). (You know, or as one idiot said, DEI=DIE.) Alex Jones, who defamed the Sandy Hook parents, jumped on the bandwagon claiming he sees a conspiracy as did much of the right sided media. Some Republican Congress members such as Nancy Mace, SC, questioned why we would want to spend money on a blue state bridge and mis-characterized the infrastructure program saying that Maryland should just use its funds from the “Green New Deal” – a mis statement. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-PA, said it was outrageous to suggest that the Federal Government should pay for the reconstruction. (Usually, the feds pay up to 90% of such construction with the states picking up a balance.) The eventual costs are today estimated to be as much as two billion dollars over several years, more money than is currently in the fund. Other used race as a reason to not build the bridge attacking the Maryland Governor and the Baltimore Mayor, both Black men. Governor Moore addressed those comments recently, as quoted in The Hill:

Gov. Wes Moore (D) brushed off mentions of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as a factor in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, denouncing the conservative criticisms as irrelevant.

Numerous GOP figures said “DEI” was somehow responsible for the bridge collapse last week, which was caused by a container ship crashing into a support column, sending the bridge into the Patapsco River and killing six people. Moore refused to give the criticisms a response.

“My response is I have no time for foolishness,” he said in a CNN “State of the Union” interview with Dana Bash on Sunday. “I’m locked in on making sure that we can bring closure and comfort to these families and making sure that we’re going to keep our first responders safe or doing heroic work,” he said.

“On making sure that we’re going to open up this channel and be able to get boats and ships and get our economic engine going again, making sure that we’re taking care of our people to include our first responders and families and small businesses who have been impacted by this,” he continued. “And I’m making sure that we’re going to get the Key Bridge rebuilt. I have no time for foolishness, and so I’m not going to delve into it.”

The most widespread DEI remarks came from Utah state Rep. Phil Lyman (R) and Florida congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini (R).

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott sharply denounced the comments as racist and race-baiting, said that DEI was just a substitute for racial slurs, specifically after he was dubbed a “DEI mayor.”“[Black people] been the bogeyman for them since the first day they brought us to this country, and what they mean by ‘DEI’ in my opinion is ‘duly elected incumbent,’” Scott said earlier this week.“

The voices on the right are implying, not very discreetly, that Black leadership is deficient and these leaders would not be in their positions without some shortcuts have been taken. Sounds sorta like the arguments being made during the Reconstruction Era to me. Isn’t it time these guys gave up on this stuff?

Officials, as reported by the Post, today  announced temporary plans to create some type of channel for transportation:

“It was not clear exactly how the alternate channel was to be created, when it could be opened or what vessels would be classified as essential. No information was immediately available on whether weight and size limits would be imposed for use of the alternate route.

Also unclear was whether the channel could be used by any cargo ships docking at Baltimore, or whether it would be restricted to vessels involved in the effort to recover from the bridge collapse.”

 

Since the Eisenhower era, the United States has had a Coast to Coast, North to South Federally funded highway system. These highways facilitated the expansion of commerce, geopolitical movements, tourism, and growth. The highway system is vital for national defense, disasters, and other emergencies. For some, to suddenly suggest that a vital link in this system should be allowed to remain broken, is folly. And short-sighted. Remember Senator Cruz decrying aid for Hurricane Sandy in NY but then wanting it when another storm devastated cities in Texas? We are all in this together – one nation with red and blue highways and bridges connected with each other. Remember when the railroads all had different gauge tracks and could not easily connect together; once that issue was resolved our rail system worked better. Highways and bridges are much the same; they have to work together for the betterment of all.

 

I restarted this blog four years ago as the COVID pandemic impacted and shut down our nation. Week after week I reported on the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. I recounted the trials of health workers, patients, and families trying to deal with this tragedy. I reported on the lack of concern, and the failure of our leaders to accept the known facts and address the health issues promptly. “Let them use bleach or Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine.” They don’t need to stay home, isolate, or wear masks- all of which were untrue. In the end, a vaccine was available, yet many were encouraged to not take it. To date, there have been a total of 6,901,176 hospitalizations and 1,186,671 deaths in the US alone, according to CDC data here. The virus continues to mutate and be with us and people are still dying; vaccines will need to change. As recently as a year ago, 1000 people a day were dying from the virus. And now the incompetent person who was directly responsible for assuring us that only 20 cases would happen here, for blaming China, rather than encouraging science, and for killing thousands of fragile, elderly people wants you to vote for him, just say NO.

Til next week- Peace!

Birth Control is under Attack

Has the option to choose birth control always been there for you and your family?

People of my age (older adults) remember the days before contraceptive medications, such as the pill, were options for women and the choices were vaginal diaphragms, which had to be fitted, then strategically inserted, condoms for men, and the Catholic Church’s advised “rhythm method”. The rhythm method used a calendar and daily temperature measurements to determine the most fertile times in a woman’s cycle. Those who wanted to get pregnant made use of this information; those who did not, abstained during these times. Few of these methods were consistent or helpful in the long run.

During the 1950s, scientists were encouraged to find better methods and eventually developed what we now know as the birth control pill. We can thank the knowledge passed down from the Aztecs and still used by some Mexican women today for the development of the first prescription birth control pill. According to an article from Planned Parenthood, women in Mexico used a type of yam, called the Barbaco Root, to prevent pregnancy. Investigation of this plant determined that it produced progestin which, when combined with estrogen, prevented pregnancy. Progestin is a hormone synthetically produced, while Progesterone is a hormone that the body produces and is used to keep a pregnancy viable. Estrogen allows the body to regulate the menstrual cycle and affects the reproductive tract and other important organs. A smaller amount is also present in males.

After many years of research, clinical trials, and field studies, the FDA approved the first prescription Birth Control pill in 1960. That medication, called Enovid, was not without controversy as many trials were conducted in Puerto Rico, where the women were frequently illiterate and might not have understood the medication instructions. This first pill had some side effects as it contained higher levels of hormones and some users reported problems with blood clots, fluid retention, and headaches, among others. (Pills used today contain only a fraction of the hormonal doses used in the early pills as scientists learned their goals could be accomplished with less medication.)

The ability to take the pill was a game changer for many women, although this, too, caused social disruption. Critics warned that this would lead to immorality if women were free to decide about pregnancies. But, for women, it meant that they could make career and educational choices, they could space the births of their children, and not be subjected to yearly births. Of course, there were those back then who fought the legality of birth control, as many states previously made promoting or prescribing it illegal. In cases decided by the Supreme Court (Griswold vs. Connecticut,1965) the use of contraception was permitted for married couples, and in 1972 (Eisenstadt vs. Baird) unmarried women could purchase the medications. (Doesn’t this totally sound quaint some 50 + years later?)

The singer Loretta Lynn even sang a tune in 1975 called ‘The Pill’ about the freedom the pill gave to women. When NPR interviewed women who lived during that era, sixty years after the pill was introduced, they spoke of the changes this made in their lives.

“When the pill was approved in 1960, women had relatively few contraceptive options, and the pill offered more reliability and convenience than methods like condoms or diaphragms, said Dr. Eve Espey, chair of the Department of Ob/Gyn and Family Planning at the University of New Mexico.

“There was a huge, pent-up desire for a truly effective form of contraception, which had been lacking up to that point,” Espey said.

By 1965, she said, 40% of young married women were on the pill.”

According to data from the CDC, contraceptive use is across all communities.

Data from the 2015–2017 National Survey of Family Growth

“In 2015–2017, 64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception. The most common contraceptive methods currently used were female sterilization (18.6%), oral contraceptive pill (12.6%), long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) (10.3%), and male condom (8.7%).

Use of LARCs was higher among women aged 20–29 (13.1%) compared with women aged 15–19 (8.2%) and 40–49 (6.7%); use was also higher among women aged 30–39 (11.7%) compared with those aged 40–49.

Current condom use did not differ among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic women (about 7%–10%).

Female sterilization declined and use of the pill increased with higher education. Use of LARCs did not differ across education (about 10%–12%).

Nearly all women use contraception in their lifetimes (1), although at any given time, they may not be using contraception for reasons such as seeking pregnancy, being pregnant, or not being sexually active. Using data from the 2015–2017 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), this report provides a snapshot of current contraceptive status, in the month of interview, among women aged 15–49 in the United States. In addition to describing use of any method by age, Hispanic origin and race, and education, patterns of use are described for the four most commonly used contraceptive methods: female sterilization; oral contraceptive pill; long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which include contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices; and male condom.

According to the Planned Parenthood article mentioned above:

“As more and more women are able to plan their families with modern methods of contraception — the IUD and methods such as the implant and the shot, which derive from the research that developed the pill — the number of pregnancies per woman has decreased worldwide. This decrease has been identified as one of the key factors associated with recently reported and significant reduction in the rate of maternal mortality around the globe (Hogan et al., 2010).

As former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pointed out during the G8 Conference in Gatineau, Quebec, “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions”

So, as we have already seen after Dobbs, abortion access remains under attack across the country. A determined effort is underway to limit the usage of birth control pills, as well as other contraceptive methods like implants and abortion pills. Over 60% of all abortions currently happening in the US use the medication method; some states are trying to add requirements for additional in-person doctor visits and deny mail-order uses of these drugs.

Another tactic uses the “conscientious objector or conscience” method, claiming that if birth control is against one’s beliefs, providers, and employers can legally avoid providing such services. The Supreme Court affirmed this argument in the Hobby Lobby case and for inclusion in the ACA.

In an article for MSNBC, professor Mary Ziegler claims the war on birth control has already started as she shows here:

“Conscience arguments are the most familiar among conscientious objectors to war, but in the 1970s, antiabortion lawyers repurposed them to carve out exemptions for medical professionals who did not want to participate in abortions. At the beginning, these conscience rules enjoyed bipartisan support: a right to conscience resonated with both progressives committed to pluralism and conservatives uncomfortable with legal abortion. But soon, abortion opponents found new uses for these arguments for conscience: Antiabortion lawyers and politicians relied on such arguments to support the Hyde Amendment, a ban on Medicaid reimbursement for abortion. Reimbursing Medicaid patients with taxpayers’ money, they argued, violated the conscience of those with objections to abortion. Their solution: ban all reimbursement for all low-income patients—and suggest that the ban actually helped Medicaid patients by forcing them into a better choice.

‘Paragraph omitted’………Conscience arguments have also transformed legal fights about birth control. ADF played a central role in fighting the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which required employers to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives without co-pay. In 2014’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, ADF defended employers who believed that common contraceptives, including IUDs and the morning-after pill, were to be abortifacients. The group has framed this cause as a fight for pluralism: just as the law should not force anyone not to use contraception, the law should not force employers to subsidize a pill they believe to kill a rights-holding fetal person. Sears’ comments show that conscience claims can be the cornerstone of a new conservative incrementalism that erodes access to birth control and lays the groundwork for a future ban. In Hobby Lobby, ADF already created the foundation for this new strategy: suggesting that religious employers had a sound reason for objecting to birth control drugs that might be abortifacients. Other powerful antiabortion groups, like Students for Life, take the same position, suggesting that common forms of birth control actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and thus qualify as abortion drugs.

The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and the ADF’s work against transgender rights has provided the group with an equally important resource for anti-birth control incrementalism: history and tradition as a limit on constitutional rights. The Dobbs ruling rejected the idea of a right to choose abortion by stressing that it is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition, understood to mean the years around 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

The “history and tradition” argument can apply even to drugs that even abortion opponents may concede are contraceptives.

Dobbs has become central to the defense of laws banning gender-affirming care for minors, many of which ADF had a hand in drafting. Parents who have pushed back against these laws have argued that the Constitution protects parents’ rights to make decisions in their children’s own best interest. Courts sympathetic to ADF responded that after Dobbs, the Constitution recognizes only rights that are deeply rooted in history and tradition—and that because gender-affirming care is new and experimental, there can be no deeply rooted right for parents to seek out that care for their children.

It would not be hard for ADF to make the same argument about birth control in the future. Some abortion opponents will argue that Dobbs already addressed the issue when it comes to many drugs—including the birth control pill—because those drugs count as abortion. But the “history and tradition” argument can apply even to drugs that even abortion opponents may concede are contraceptives. It was in the late nineteenth century, after all, that many states began criminalizing contraception, and that the federal government passed the Comstock Act, which made it a federal crime to mail contraceptives. This kind of evidence convinced the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority that there was no right to abortion. ADF knows that at some later point, similar evidence might convince the Court that there is no right to contraception either.

In the short term, access to birth control is likely to remain unchanged. In the longer term, however, ADF has made clear that it is far from safe. And anyone looking to predict how the attack on it will unfold knows just where to look: fights about sexual orientation, gender identity, and the right to conscience.”

Mary Ziegler Professor at the UC Davis School of Law Oct. 10, 2023

The Washington Post published two articles recently that exposed the campaign by some on the right to discourage the use of birth control by spreading false rumors about complications and side effects. And, as noted earlier, the initial pills used higher doses of hormones and patients had a higher rate of side effects. However, now, information is provided to patients that during the first couple of months, their bodies may experience changes as they get used to the new medication. This is not unique to contraceptive medications.

“The backlash to birth control comes at a time of rampant misinformation about basic health tenets amid poor digital literacy and a wider political debate over reproductive rights, in which far-right conservatives argue that broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family.”

The second article in the Post provides explanations to counter the claims made in the previous article.

As I asked last week in my blog about the ERA, what is it about women’s autonomy and empowerment that so frightens the right?

Some Blue states are stockpiling Mifepristone; I hope they will not have to do that for contraceptive options. The Economist reports that an average of 400 women per day (or 160,000 last year) are crossing state boundaries to access abortion services. The Supreme Court will hear arguments against the FDA approval of Mifepristone this week, with Senator Josh Hawley’s wife Erin arguing against approval. What a power couple they are!

The Economist also presents a case to reject this petition, stating that the drug is safer than Tylenol and was not rushed to a decision. Mifepristone is used in 90% of abortions conducted in England, Wales, and many Scandinavian countries today. The World Health Organization (WHO) approved it. The arguments against it are described as spurious. (But. then. many on the right, reject the WHO!)

Till next week-Peace!